The just as I noticed, the "Obama Birth Certificate" has layers. It was constructed in Adobe Illustrator. If Obama would just release an un-doctored copy we could all put this to rest, but Obama doesn't want that. They are playing games and so far the games have backfired and I predict that they will continue to backfire.

Hell no I'm not surprised Ed. But, as I've mentioned previously, I'm not going to discourage conservatives from chasing their tail in this matter as it makes them look extremely foolish at an opportune time. Did you hear Trumps presser today!! "I'm very proud of myself" "Now we can focus on China and the price of oil". Are you fucking kidding me Donald? You couldn't focus on China or the price of oil before the birth certificate? Now he's chasing the Presidents college transcripts. It doesn't get any more entertaining than this. Any more Adobegate news Bart? LMAO

So you read the attached article and then you look at the actual document. It looks like somebody just put a carbon over it and wrote some stuff. This is hardly the GWB papers that were written in future font.

Standard government douchebaggery if you ask me.

Been there, done that, got the certificate signed by the president to prove it.

Obama waited over 2 years to release this document, he knows tons of people will look at it and yet he can't help but release an obviously manipulated image?

Either they did it intentionally to try and keep the controversy alive or they are so incompetent that they didn't realize that their forgery would be discovered so quickly.

I know some of you don't work with old documents like I do but take a look at the "document" released by Obama and ask yourself if a photostat from 1961 would look like that. I included two other photostats to compare to. Obama's BC is significantly different from Trump's BC and the Nordike Twin BC.

Add in the fact that the document is in layers and this raises more questions than it answers.

Woody and Ed can snicker online all they want, not realizing they are as old news and behind the curve as was former Press Secretary Gibbs snickering at Lee Kinsolving. Obama has proven himself to be too clever by half (at least) and this whole wedge- issue strategery has blown up in his face, hence his need on this issue to finally lower the metaphorical middle finger he has been shoving in the American people's faces for the last 3.5 years.

Woody and Ed, it's about time to employ some intellectual curiousity, instead of knee-jerk partisan hackery, to guide your thinking. Given the failure to meet virtually all of his campaign pledges in the first 25 months of his administration & the loss of support of a large chunk of the independents and Reagan Democrats in the 2010 Midterms, it is appalling to me that you can somehow square Obama's pledge to be the "most transparent president in history" with his cynical game-playing and actual suppression of the truth about key moments in his life by laughing it all off as some kind of political game. Obama's attempts at marginalization has blown up in his face and you guys are not just a chapter behind in the Ongoing Narrative, you missed the whole Big Picture point in this whole sordid affair- the layers of the Onion are slowly being peeled back. ( It will be interesting to hear your take when the Clinton crowd finally engineers their own "night of the long knives" and do a take-down on Obama;

as the originators of the birther conspiracy, it's likely they will have "new revelations" for the upcoming 2012 campaign that this time will stick on the weakened Prez and force Obama into his own LBJ "I do not choose to run" moment).

"Has a President or presidential candidate ever been demanded to show his vital records? The answer is a most definite yes. Even Senator McCain had to show his birth certificate, and provide verification that he was indeed born on US ground in the Canal Zone, to parents engaged in the service of the country. In fact, I can now say that there has never been a president who, when challenged for his vital records, did not provide them.

Has there ever been a problem with those vital records, in which people were not convinced by them, or where the records were unclear? Again, this is a definite yes. Both Presidents Arthur and Jackson had issues concerning their birth and records. In the case of Jackson, there was a question as to which state he was actually born in, although he was most certainly born in a state. In the case of Arthur, there was a question that he might have had dual citizenship at birth, thereby precluding natural citizenship, because his father was an Irish national. It is likely that Mr. Obama will end up facing this same question.

Has there ever been a controversy which dragged on for so long? The answer to that is no. In all the previous controversies, the people involved took it seriously, including the press. They worked to address the issues, to present evidence and witnesses, and obtained legal opinions or rulings. This is where Mr. Obama's handling of the issue is unique: he belittled and prolonged it. Les Kinsolving of WCBM and World Net Daily was among the few White House reporters who would ever ask about issues concerning President Obama's birth certificate. The White House staff would often ignore and frequently humiliate him concerning the questions. There was even one recording where, when asking about Mr. Obama's losses in a law suit, the other reporters could be heard snickering. Mr. Gibbs simply ignored the question.............."

"The question of whether the President can be President is not trivial, and there is no reason to belittle a person when such an important issue is more cloudy than clear. Perhaps it started with a partisan fringe, but Mr. Obama's refusal to end it lent it credence, to the point that a USA Today poll showed only 38% of people believed that Mr. Obama was born in the United States. The White House was belittling not a small fringe, but 62% of Americans.

This issue has given us a good view into the Obama White House internals. First, they lack the ability to identify serious and important issues. Second, they lack the ability to distinguish between fringe and majority. Third, Mr. Obama is all for highly partisan politics. This is a combination of flaws which can only spell political disaster, and it has raised its head before.

The hostile takeovers of Chrysler and GM raised a lot of alarm flags, but the Obama White House bullied the fringe critics. The extortion of banks into taking bailouts raised more flags, but again, the critics were marginalized. The QE2 stimulus had a lot of right-wing objectors. The opponents of ObamaCare were just a fringe that didn't know what they were talking about. Objections to the not-war in Libya are yet another fringe. Now in the budget and debt limit arguments, the Republican Party has been taken over by "the extreme right wing." What happens, when that "extreme right wing" is not as extreme, right, or wing as the White House thinks? Easy, the White House will have insulted and angered a lot of people."

You must be jokinwritten by Woody , April 28, 2011

Do you have evidence that the President was born outside of the US. If not, I suggest you STFU and move on unless you come up with some strong evidence other than links from right wing web sites. How pathetic. I continue to snicker at your futility.

I know that the left doesn't care about the rule of law as long as it helps the left, but as jokin noted, this is a serious issue that was handled seriously in the past.

...written by Woody , April 29, 2011

Do you have evidence that the President was not born in the USA? If not, I suggest you move on to his transcripts or whatever the next distraction will be. I agree that the citizenship of our President IS important but this was resolved years ago with the Presidents COLB and yet again recently with the long form. The left does not care about the letter of the law? Get real Bart. Now we can move on to what matters or continue to peel this onion like layers of an Adobe document. Let's see how Orlys hearing goes on Monday morning pertaining to the Presidents Selective Service records or whatever her next toy is. Snicker Snicker!

I'll gladly say it. The left does not care about the letter of the law when it applies to one of their side. The Right also does not care about the letter of the law when it applies to one of their side either.

Receiving public housing assistance and you get involved with prescription fraud? You need to be out on your ass. If you have a political radio show though you get a mulligan.

Put out a political based movie close to an election? If it's about George Bush you get awards. If it's about Hillary Clinton you get sued.

Election recounts? If it's your side that is behind it is about making sure that every vote counts and voter nullification. If the other side is behind it is about manufacturing votes and dubious voting encouraging schemes.

Labor bills? Fleeing the state to avoid vote in noble resistance to tyranny of the majority. Orchestrating a way of allowing the majority of the rightly elected officials to execute the will of the people. Which do you choose?

Judges? Obvious bias by attending meetings orchestrated by powerful political financiers? Obvious bias by having a spouse and a child that work for organized labor?

Big Whoopwritten by Jay Duggan , April 29, 2011

I don't care what country he was born in, or what color he is. The President is still a quai-commie, dedicated socialist idiot who thinks "fair" distribution of resources is more important than personal liberty and private property rights. The birth certificate just proves that his mother was a stupid hippie slut shortly before late 60's war protesters and left political movements made being a stupid hippie slut cool.

Completely missing the point, right on cuewritten by jokin , April 29, 2011

"You must be jokin written by Woody , April 28, 2011

Do you have evidence that the President was born outside of the US. If not, I suggest you STFU and move on unless you come up with some strong evidence other than links from right wing web sites. How pathetic. I continue to snicker at your futility. "

It's apparent that having a serious discussion with you is less fruitful than having one with Ed (is that even possible?). It's obvious that you have exposed your own set of brown-shirt-like character flaws in your two responses and that you barely read, or are unable to comprehend what I proffered, as I never asserted that Obama "was born outside the US"; as a matter of fact, I believe he was born in Hawaii and the author of the article I cited believes it, as well. The "strong evidence" of Obama's obfuscation of his personal life, his failure to acknowledge the will of the majority, and his utter disregard for the rule of law (defying numerous court orders and conspicuous failures to enforce the rule of law through his Justice Department) is in fact, prima facie, to even you, Woodrow.

Are you seriously asserting that, especially given the fact that Obama has sold your side out by his string of broken campaign promises, that you have no interest in expecting the same transparency of Obama's life that was demanded of previous Presidents?

If you actually were in the position of hiring someone to work for you, would you tacitly accept a Swiss-Cheese-redacted-resume like Obama's?

Finally, where will you stand when Hilary (the progenitor of the "birther" theory) starts in with fresh attacks, in her tradition in the politics of personal destruction, on Obama, as she announces her intentions to run against him? Which side of that coin will you demand to "STFU"?

...written by Jim ross , April 29, 2011

Demanding multiple versions of the president's birth certificate, banning gay marriage, defunding planned parenthood, cutting off funding for NPR.....glad to see we're focusing on jobs and the economy.

...written by Woody , April 29, 2011

I'd be happy to have a serious exchange with you jokin but it's tough to be serious with this continuing birther insanity. Why is it that this President is so scrutinized as to the origin of his birth even after submitting his COLB over two years ago? Could be because he is bl from Illinois? Now on to the economy. Great idea Jim. What has the new blood in Congress proposed so far? not much...

...written by jokin , April 30, 2011

... written by Woody , April 29, 2011

"I'd be happy to have a serious exchange with you jokin but it's tough to be serious with this continuing birther insanity. Why is it that this President is so scrutinized as to the origin of his birth even after submitting his COLB over two years ago? Could be because he is bl from Illinois? Now on to the economy. Great idea Jim. What has the new blood in Congress proposed so far? not much..."

I didn't mention the "birther insanity" and you still told me to "STFU". Ultimately, that is not what this is about. If this whole issue wasn't that serious to Obama, why did he finally choose to respond with the release of the long form 3 days ago- when he could have put this all to rest 3 years ago? I would argue that this has all been political gamesmanship on HIS part, and was crafted back when it was Hilary's allies who were attacking him on this theme. This was about the same time he was starting the "bitter clinger" ploy, hoping to tempt and then marginalize anyone that took the bait. FYI, there are virtually no Republicans holding elective office that ever pushed the birther issue. Obama's master plan has backfired and he had to put an end to it to stop the bleeding from the least committed parts of his voting coalition.

Being "black" is entirely irrelevant and really the "racist" argument is the most tiresome bromide that the left whips out when they are losing control of the argument, you really don't help yourself by engaging in this intellectually lazy and silly rhetoric--- now, Obama hailing from the cesspool of corrupt Chicago, IL politics isn't at all irrelevant. Do you have any interest in: who his Chicago backers and image makers are?, are you aware of the level of corruption that still exists in one-party Cook County and how that system helped form Obama's approach to governing?, are you aware that the State of Illinois under Obama friends and allies (many now in jail) is on the verge of becoming the first defaulting domino amongst the Democrat-controlled states?, are you aware of how he first gained elective office (his thug tactics would have made even Joe Kennedy blush)?, how he enriched himself and Michelle in favorable land and employment deals with people currently in prison or facing possible indictment?, his less than sterling record as a community organizer and state senator and left-of-Bernie Sanders voting record as a US Senator?, his 20 year record of attendance at a Black Liberation Theology church?, the utter failure of his Annenberg Challenge educational reforms?. These are all actual events that happened while he lived in Illinois and are all topics that Obama has chosen to hide and obfuscate from the public view (with MSM acquiesence), until it is no longer politically viable to do so. May I suggest you read Stanley Kurtz's book, "Radical in Chief", to get yourself up to speed.

Regarding the "new blood" in Congress, the old blood under Reid and Pelosi failed to even do their constitutional duty and pass a budget last September, nice profiles in courage that you choose to champion! Although I am no fan of the Repubs, numerous spending reform bills have passed in the House, including Ryan's long-term budget proposal, only to be held up in the Senate. Obama has publicly agreed that the "era of trillion dollar budget deficits is over", and then he and Reid made no effort to compromise w/ the Repubs on any meaningful spending cuts, instead using the third-rail government-shutdown-gambit-gamesmanship to political perfection. Jim Ross fails to note the symbolic irony that the body politic can't even come to agreement that the funding of NPR, Planned Parenthood and Cowboy Poetry Festivals are non-essential luxuries in an era when the country is facing the economic abyss. Meanwhile, virtually every proposal that Obama and Reid have put forth have served to kill jobs and incentives for investment in the private sector. To add to the irony, they remain successful in maintaining their kleptocratic multi-trillion $$$ slush fund in order to keep the payoffs going to their political allies in the public sector, the country now borrows 42 cents on each dollar it spends, clearly unsustainable, and utterly, criminally, irresponsible on their part. Why do you choose to ignore these "old blood" proposals?

...written by Jim ross , April 30, 2011

"Great idea Jim. What has the new blood in Congress proposed so far? not much..."

They've proposed Ryan's budget, which is a good start and at least provides some basis for a fiscal discussion. Unfortunately, the numbers Ryan uses are dreamy at best. If his budget was more honest in its revenue and fiscal projections, perhaps we'd have something to work with.

Unfortunately, it appears that spending reductions and budget ideas have taken a back seat to the social issues championed by narrow-minded conservatives. Same old shit, just a group of new faces peddling it.